[[[
13:56:52 [libby] 1) gettign rid of rdf reification names
13:57:03 [libby] 2) using bnodes for the subject
13:57:14 [libby] 3) nmg's change for results
13:57:33 [libby] 4) using a constrained RDF syntax (with a DTD)
13:57:57 [libby] 5) having a simple and a complex version, mappable with
XSLT
13:58:13 [libby] wendy: consensus on 1,2,3?
13:58:33 [libby] ...check with sbp first; then modify the schema
]]] - http://www.w3.org/2002/06/25-erswad-irc
I don't agree with 1 at all, and am indifferent towards 4 and 5 (see my
other emails for notes about these issues). I'm not sure to what 3 refers:
can someone clarify, please?
As for 2, earl:WebContent is a series of octets, and therefore necessarily
static. DanBri's design issues on the subject are rather good, and I think
that a summary of them should be published by the WG, perhaps as part of
the specification (I should review these in more detail--there may be some
minor points that I want to clarify).
As for making people use bNodes, it is feasible that I would want to use a
"tag:" URI or a UUID to identify the test subject, and then be able to
reuse it elsewhere without repeating all of the properties. In any case,
this isn't something that we can force at the schema level, and I'd like to
avoid saying stuff at the application level unless it's absolutely
necessary.
Note that Jim is very correct to point out that we've discussed and dealt
with this all before: the last decent thread we had on the issue was with
Al talking about the domain of TestCases, and that's something that I think
we should revisit. I'm unclear on a lot of the discussion in the IRC
minutes, and am a bit pressed for time, so I'll have to revisit this entire
issue later. Meanwhile, check out the "Formalizing testSubject" thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-er-ig/2002Mar/0005
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> .
:Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .